I don't, nor do I believe I've said I do above. I think we are coming at this from different perspectives; I'm saying it's not as good for mediocre employees even if might appear so on face value (the headline being you no longer have to wait 2 years to get protection, but the reality being decisions get made quicker), not that I think it's worse for 'good' workers/employers if we can get rid of the dross sooner.So .... you want to keep so called "...mediocre, dross..." employees for 2 yrs. Why now?
I think it's tough when people have jobs with patients etc, my wife works in healthcare and feels compelled to do what's needed but everyone has their limits and you've got to look after yourself first and foremost. People sometimes feel a sense of guilt for leaving a job (heck, even going on holiday) especially if they have friends they are leaving behind it pick up the pieces, but you can't let that be a deciding factor.Pretty depressing as all these projects have patients at the end of them on clinical trials which won't happen now.
But it was breaking her, new focus and purpose needed, but job market is obvs quiet atm.
That's pretty poor, at least judged by UK standards. When multiple people are let go I normally expect some form of comms, which can also help to settle some of the uncertainty associated with departures. Radio silence just leads to a lot of speculation and nervousness. Although that said - I've seen it the other way myself with comms coming out very early when there is a lack of clarity about that actual implications with long lead-times to departures.Four people in my team cut, and at least one in our "sister" team. Probably more from my department that I'm unaware of.
No announcements, not even internally - not even my boss has told me about a single one of these and these are my direct team - in fact I found out about two of them at our Christmas drinks on Thursday.
I don't, nor do I believe I've said I do above. I think we are coming at this from different perspectives; I'm saying it's not as good for mediocre employees even if might appear so on face value (the headline being you no longer have to wait 2 years to get protection, but the reality being decisions get made quicker), not that I think it's worse for 'good' workers/employers if we can get rid of the dross sooner.

Varies on the company goal course, but in the past I've seen this happen to overseas based providers where the goal is to move the cost from UK to e.g. India over time. Many high cost location employees start looking for jobs immediately and most are gone within 1-2 yrs.Looks like I'm likely to be TUPEd to a consultancy as part of an outsourcing arrangement. Bit of a weird one, I've typically seen this done following takeovers rather than an employee being pushed out to a vendor.
Not sure what to make of it at present. On the one hand I'd rather get a redundancy payout and then get a different job, on the other there is something to be said for having a familiar environment when changing employer i.e. I would have my existing knowledge and network compared to being farmed out to some random other client on day 2 like you'd normally get with consultancy.
That was my assumption going in, their business model is not based around having high paid on-shore staff. A lot of roles are already going to India (hence redundancies rather than TUPE) but allegedly my role is one they want to keep onshore (I guess because it involves a lot of holistic relationship management etc).Varies on the company goal course, but in the past I've seen this happen to overseas based providers where the goal is to move the cost from UK to e.g. India over time. Many high cost location employees start looking for jobs immediately and most are gone within 1-2 yrs.